Allowed

Sumesh Kumar Rana v. State of Hp and Others

Himachal Pradesh HC3 Apr 2023CRMMO/51/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed the petition under Section 482 CrPC to quash an FIR registered for vehicular accident offences causing injury. Relying on Supreme Court precedents, it held that these non-compoundable offences were private in nature, the victim had recovered, full expenses were paid, and a valid compromise was reached, making continuation of proceedings unjustified.

What did the court decide?

FIR No.58/2021 dated 05.04.2021 registered under sections 279, 337, 338 IPC and Section 187 of the Motor Vehicles Act was quashed and consequential proceedings were set aside.

Sumesh Kumar Rana Vs State of Hp and Others — Quashing and FIR | Himachal Pradesh HC (2023)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA

¶2

Cr.MMO No.51 of 2023 Decided on: 3^rd April, 2023

¶3

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Sumesh Kumar Rana …..Petitioner

¶4

Versus

¶5

State of H.P. and others .....Respondents -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

¶6

Coram

¶7

Ms. Justice Jyotsna Rewal Dua

¶8

Whether approved for reporting?¹

¶9

For the Petitioner: Mr. Mukul Sood, Advocate. For the Respondents: Mr. Y.P.S. Dhaulta, Mr. Rupinder Singh Thakur and Mr. Navlesh Verma, Additional Advocates General with Ms. Seema Sharma, Deputy Advocate General, for respondents No.1 to 3. Mr. Het Ram Thakur, Advocate, for respondents No.4 and 5. ASI Daljeet Singh, Police Station Gagret, District Una, H.P., present in person.

¶10

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

¶11

Jyotsna Rewal Dua, Judge

¶12

FIR No.58/2021 was registered against the petitioner on 05.04.2021 under Sections 279, 337 & 338 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) and Section 187 of the Motor Vehicles Act at Police Station Gagret, District Una, H.P. The petitioner seeks quashing of this FIR and setting aside of consequent judicial proceedings. The compromise arrived at

¶13

1 Whether reporters of print and electronic media may be allowed to see the order?

¶14

¶15

between the private parties is the basis for moving the petition.

¶16

2. The FIR was registered on the basis of a complaint lodged by respondent No.5, who is the mother of respondent No.4, a minor child presently stated to be aged around 16 years. The complaint was with the averments that on 05.04.2021, the vehicle driven by the petitioner had hit the minor child of respondent No.5 and caused him injuries. This resulted into lodging of the FIR in question. 3. Alongwith the petition, a compromise deed executed between the private parties on 24.09.2022 has been placed on record at Annexure P-4. In terms of this compromise, the petitioner and respondent No.5 have resolved their disputes with each other. The compromise deed records that the complainant, in order to maintain cordial relations, is not interested in pursuing the instant FIR any further and has no objection in case the FIR and consequential criminal proceedings are culminated.

¶17

4. The parties, i.e. petitioner and respondent No.5, have attended today’s hearing. They were duly identified by their learned counsel. In their separate statements recorded today, the complainant as well as accused have stood by the averments made in the compromise deed dated 24.09.2022 (Annexure P-4). In terms of the said

¶18

¶19

compromise, respondent No.5 does not want to pursue the matter any further.

¶20

5. On being put to notice, respondents No.1 to 3 have filed the status report. In terms of the status report, respondents No.1 to 3 have verified the factum of execution of compromise between the parties. Status report also mentions that the entire expenses towards the treatment of the minor child of the complainant were borne by the petitioner. That the minor child of the complainant has now completely recovered from his injuries.

¶21

6. The law laid down in respect of exercise of powers under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for quashing or for refusing to quash the FIR and resultant proceedings on the basis of compromise effected by the parties in (2012) 10 SCC 303 , titled Gian Singh vs. State of Punjab; (2014) 6 SCC 466 , titled Narinder Singh vs. State of Punjab; (2017) 9 SCC 641 , titled as Parbatbhai Aahir vs. State of Gujarat , has been noticed again by Hon’ble Apex Court in (2019) 5 SCC 688 , titled State of Madhya Pradesh vs. Laxmi Narayan , with following observations:-

¶22

“15. Considering the law on the point and the other decisions of this Court on the point, referred to hereinabove, it is observed and held as under:

¶23

15.1 That the power conferred under Section 482 of the Code to quash the criminal proceedings for the noncompoundable offences under Section 320 of the Code

¶24

¶25

can be exercised having overwhelmingly and predominantly the civil character, particularly those arising out of commercial transactions or arising out of matrimonial relationship or family disputes and when the parties have resolved the entire dispute amongst themselves;

¶26

15.2 Such power is not to be exercised in those prosecutions which involved heinous and serious offences of mental depravity or offences like murder, rape, dacoity, etc. Such offences are not private in nature and have a serious impact on society;

¶27

15.3 Similarly, such power is not to be exercised for the offences under the special statutes like Prevention of Corruption Act or the offences committed by public servants while working in that capacity are not to be quashed merely on the basis of compromise between the victim and the offender;

¶28

15.4 Offences under Section 307 IPC and the Arms Act etc. would fall in the category of heinous and serious offences and therefore are to be treated as crime against the society and not against the individual alone, and therefore, the criminal proceedings for the offence under Section 307 IPC and/or the Arms Act etc. which have a serious impact on the society cannot be quashed in exercise of powers under Section 482 of the Code, on the ground that the parties have resolved their entire dispute amongst themselves. However, the High Court would not rest its decision merely because there is a mention of Section 307 IPC in the FIR or the charge is framed under this provision. It would be open to the High Court to examine as to whether incorporation of Section 307 IPC is there for the sake of it or the prosecution has collected sufficient evidence, which if proved, would lead to framing the charge under Section 307 IPC. For this purpose, it would be open to the High Court to go by the nature of injury sustained, whether such injury is inflicted on the vital/delegate parts of the body, nature of weapons used etc. However, such an exercise by the High Court would be permissible only after the evidence is collected after investigation and the charge sheet is filed/charge is framed and/or during the trial. Such exercise is not permissible when the matter is still under investigation. Therefore, the ultimate conclusion in paragraphs 29.6 and 29.7 of the decision of this Court in the case of Narinder Singh (supra) should be read harmoniously and to be read as a whole and in the circumstances stated hereinabove; 15.5 While exercising the power under Section 482 of the Code to quash the criminal proceedings in respect of

¶29

¶30

non-compoundable offences, which are private in nature and do not have a serious impact on society, on the ground that there is a settlement/ compromise between the victim and the offender, the High Court is required to consider the antecedents of the accused; the conduct of the accused, namely, whether the accused was absconding and why he was absconding, how he had managed with the complainant to enter into a compromise.”

¶31

7. The FIR in question has been registered under Sections 279, 337 & 338 IPC and Section 187 of the Motor Vehicles Act. The offences involved in the FIR do not fall in the prohibited category in terms of the legal position settled by the Hon’ble Apex Court in various pronouncements.

¶32

8. Since the parties have amicably settled the matter amongst themselves, therefore, no purpose will be served by keeping the litigation alive. Continuation of the FIR and consequential criminal proceedings would not advance the cause of justice when the complainant is not interested in pursuing the matter any further. The chances of conviction of the petitioner would be very very remote. Hence, interest of justice requires that the FIR and consequential criminal proceedings be quashed.

¶33

Consequently, the present petition is allowed. FIR No.58/2021, dated 05.04.2021, registered under Sections 279, 337 & 338 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) and Section 187 of the Motor Vehicles Act at Police Station

¶34

¶35

Gagret, District Una, H.P. is quashed and consequential proceedings, if any, are set aside.

¶36

The petition stands disposed of in the above terms, so also the pending miscellaneous application(s), if any.

¶37

April 03, 2023 Mukesh

¶38

Jyotsna Rewal Dua Judge

Sumesh Kumar Rana v. State of Hp and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sumesh Kumar Rana v. State of Hp and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Hitesh Sublaik Vs State of Hp

Akhil Vs State of Hp

Anil Kapoor Vs Dipika Chauhan

General Manager Northern Railway Vs Harmesh Singh and Others

Virender Kanwar and Anr. Vs State of Hp and Anr.

Kajal Kashyap Vs State of Hp and Another